Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kagome 85/Archive

Report date April 14 2010, 13:06 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets



A user purporting to be Ziva David stated on IRC that this was their previous account, and that they had created the new account to avoid the block. Needs CU check  Chzz  ►  13:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  Chzz  ►


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Don't worry, I'm finished. I get blocked and accused of making sockpuppet accounts after EXPLAINING the reason why I had to get new acccounts, due to user Blackmagic1234. PLEASE do a sockpuppet check on Blackmagic1234 and Higgys, as HE has used that account(Higgys)to harass me on an account in the past, while I NEVER harassed, I made good edits. Thank you for showing me that I'm NOT welcome here. Ziva David (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sleeper accounts? This is the only account I currently use. Ziva David (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

oh, and I was trying to make a "fresh start." I'm allowed to with what I read on Wikipedia: '''Clean start under a new name: If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. Discontinuing the old account means it will not be used again; it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the retired tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet. A clean start is permitted only if there are no bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. That is, you should not turn up on a page you edited as User:A to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B—particularly while denying any connection to User:A, or if the edits or subject matter are contentious. You should also not, as User:B, engage in disputes you engaged in as User:A—whether they are disputes about articles, project-space issues, or other editors—without making clear that you are the same person. You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts; however, it is strongly recommended that you inform ArbCom (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of a previous account or accounts prior to seeking out adminship or similar functionary positions. Failure to do so may be considered deceptive, and as such be poorly received by the Wikipedia community.'''

Sorry that I never informed ArbCom, I didn't know that I had to do that. I'm sorry for that. Also, this is coming from an IP address as I changed my password so I could not get back into the account Ziva_David, and that was a bit stupid to have been done, as I could have made the post from the account instead of some IP address. 142.177.43.5 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by  Chzz  ►  13:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

I was in IRC at the time. Looks plausible based on contribs as well (see for instance: and ). If the link is confirmed please run a check for sleepers, as the user indicated that they have more accounts. Probably related to RFCU page, although any links between them will be stale. If they are related then I'm guessing the IP range is probably going to be much to large for a block, somewhere in the region of. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅ that the following are the same: Given the "Kagome 23" in there, I'd say that they are all related to User:Kagome 85. --Deskana (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved case from Sockpuppet investigations/Abby 92. Tim Song (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All accounts blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

07 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

You just have to look at the edits and do a check user. It will show it is Kagome_85. Plus it will prove Kagome_85 has made multiple accounts which is against Wikipedia rules. 156.57.88.131 (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Please, compare Mallory_Pike and Claudia Kishi to each other. They do have similar edits, but what I see the most interesting is that after a several years break, they resumed editing on the same day, 7 April 2015.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ to each other:
 * Kagome 85 and socks are obviously . . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kagome 85 and socks are obviously . . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kagome 85 and socks are obviously . . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kagome 85 and socks are obviously . . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kagome 85 and socks are obviously . . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardblocked IP one year. Tagged accounts and closing.

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Similar username
 * Sockpuppet shortly created before suspected master's block
 * Sockpuppet edited the same page the suspected master has edit-warred on
 * "Baby-Sitters Club" interest overlap for both accounts (search both users' contribution lists for the term "Baby-Sitters")

Either we're being trolled by an impostor, or this is blatant block evasion. Requesting checkuser evidence to distinguish between these two scenarios. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ plus:
 * The user responsible for the above accounts is also responsible for a significant amount of logged out editing going back at least 3 months.
 * These accounts are to . ST47 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this is actually Sockpuppet investigations/Kagome 85. Compare, to this edit by a sock of Kagome 85. Sro23 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The user responsible for the above accounts is also responsible for a significant amount of logged out editing going back at least 3 months.
 * These accounts are to . ST47 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this is actually Sockpuppet investigations/Kagome 85. Compare, to this edit by a sock of Kagome 85. Sro23 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that based on those edits to Skeet_(Newfoundland), User:Kagome 85 is probably the correct master. Requesting clerk attention to consider refiling this under that case.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also WP:REVDEL'd a bunch of revisions of Skeet_(Newfoundland) which included WP:BLP-violating list of "famous skeets", by various socks here. And semi-protected the page for a year.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. Moved. Closing. The SandDoctor  Talk 04:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't touch your notices etc without consultation as they are CU actions. Could you please update them or give me the OK to go ahead and do it? The SandDoctor  Talk 04:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can update the block notices and the tags. If you update the tags, please either use the alt-master parameters or mark them as proven rather than confirmed, as there's obviously no way to confirm them to the this master. ST47 (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've left the block logs alone (and Sockpuppet investigations/TheBlackKitty points here anyways), but have updated the tags. -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)